Maryland’s state recycling needs assessment, along with a new recommendation report from a state advisory group, aims to shape future extended producer responsibility legislation in the state.

The two documents, which were delayed by several months, offer new details on how an EPR for packaging program could be tailored for Maryland’s specific recycling needs. Such details may impact EPR legislation that was recently introduced in the state Senate. 

The needs assessment notes that a “well-designed” program could raise recycling rates and create jobs, but only with certain infrastructure investments and strong stakeholder partnerships. Meanwhile, the advisory group report focused on the hypothetical EPR program’s design and implementation logistics.

Maryland has not passed an EPR for packaging law. The assessment and recommendation report are required by a state law passed in 2023, which called for the Maryland Department of the Environment to complete a recycling needs assessment as part of a statewide EPR study. The assessment, conducted by environmental firm HDR with assistance by other consulting firms, came out Feb. 21. 

That same law also formed an EPR advisory group, made up of 21 stakeholders, to deliver policy recommendations to the state’s legislature. That advisory group sent its recommendations to the state legislature last week. The letter was cosigned by representatives from McCormick & Co. and the Maryland Environmental Service.

Investment needs

The 154-page needs assessment offers numerous findings on state waste and recycling infrastructure and capacity, key costs, and details on disposal and recycling methods, among other details.

The assessment underscores that a packaging EPR program could increase Maryland’s recycling rate for paper and packaging from 34% to 50% or more, but such a program will need to harmonize with existing recycling operations and prioritize infrastructure investments and recycling education improvements.

Using a hypothetical model, the assessment also estimates an EPR for packaging program could generate about $202 million in captured material value, compared with a baseline estimate of $149 million today. However, it notes that the cost of implementing the program would be about 20% higher than baseline recycling costs, though “those costs decrease per unit recycled as volume of material recycled increases.”

Other long-term benefits would include the creation of an estimated 2,075 jobs and reduce emissions by more than 1 million metric tons, it said.

Stakeholder engagement, a hallmark of any EPR bill process, was front and center in the report. The assessment underscored the importance of working closely with MRF operators, haulers and organics recyclers during the design and implementation process. These groups are mainly concerned about how a possible EPR program could create burdensome reporting requirements and impact their daily operations if a future EPR law requires more material streams to be included in the program. 

Meanwhile, the assessment found that county and municipal players generally support EPR for packaging as a way to support existing recycling programs and divert more items from disposal. However, these groups were concerned about possible EPR mandates that would disrupt existing operations or create costs that the program wouldn’t cover. 

The assessment also advocated for upgrading “aging” single- and dual-stream MRFs in the state, as well as certain organics processing facilities. Upgrading equipment at key MRFs could add approximately 190,150 tons per year of recycling capacity and cost between $9.2 million to $10.3 million. Improvements at Maryland’s main organics processing facilities could also cost between $1.8 million and $25.5 million per facility.

Further engagement with the state’s nearly 300 reuse organizations can also help expand sustainability initiatives, the assessment stated. Currently, 19% of these organizations accept packaging-related materials.

EPR can also be a level for improving workforce recruitment and retention, it said. Improving safety metrics at recycling facilities, offering competitive compensation and partnering with more women and minority-owned businesses are opportunities to further the program’s effectiveness, it said. 

Any future EPR program must also take environmental justice considerations into account, including operations’ potential impact on emissions, truck traffic and road degradation, the report said. Several key areas of the state are known for “urban pollution risks and concentrations of underserved populations,” the assessment states.

Advisory council recommends EPR process details

While the needs assessment drilled down on data related to Maryland's existing infrastructure and operations, the EPR advisory council’s recommendations focused on how state legislation and subsequent rulemaking could address program setup and logistics. The 21-member group, made up of waste companies, organics processors, consumer packaged goods companies and the Circular Action Alliance, met throughout 2024 to formulate the recommendations.

The document offered suggestions for a producer responsibility organization’s role in managing producers, fees and performance measures, along with recommendations for program oversight. The report also offered considerations into data collection and reporting methods, including what kind of data to collect and how to measure data and performance gaps. It laid out details on how an EPR program should set targets related to recycling rates, postconsumer content and other data. 

The report called for setting a fee structure that includes ecomodulation elements, allowing producers to pay less by including postconsumer content or packaging that is reusable or compostable. Fees collected by the PRO could pay for reimbursing local governments for recycling costs related to collection, sorting and processing, as well as reimbursing MDE for administrative duties related to the EPR plan, the report recommended. 

The report also left open the possibility for a PRO and MDE to adopt regulations identifying “responsible end markets,” a process other states with EPR laws, like Oregon, have also undertaken. 

What’s next

All these details could play into the formulation of a bill introduced by state Sens. Malcolm Augustine and Sara Love.

The draft bill was introduced before the needs assessment and advisory council report were completed, but stakeholders involved in the bill process say the content of that legislation is likely to undergo considerable changes over the coming weeks. Future iterations could reflect some information from the needs assessment and recommendations from the advisory council.

During a Feb. 18 hearing, Augustine noted that some of the Maryland EPR bill changes could align with some aspects of Minnesota’s 2024 EPR law, but it’s not clear what those changes will look like yet.